Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases..

BREAKDOWN OF RELATIONSHIPS:

There are two ways you can tackle the breakdown of relationship topics. One, you can look at how relationships break down, e.g., the stages at which relationships break down (rarely end suddenly if they have been long-term), or you can look at why relationships break down. I have chosen to do one of each.

First Theory of Relationship Breakdown:

Duck’s five-stage Model of Dissolution 

A01 Theory

Duck’s model (2006) - Focuses on the breakdown process as being a long psychological process, not a sudden occurrence. These stages can overlap but have different purposes and outcomes. The initiation of the next stage occurs when an individual reaches the threshold. Duck supposed there were five stages which a threshold could trigger.

Breakdown-Dissatisfaction leads to crisis- repair strategy: individual corrects own faults.

INTRAPSYCHIC PHASE: The start of the breakup process where one or both partners are dissatisfied with the relationship. The first Intrapsychic Phase of this process involves an individual( or BOTH Parties!) brooding on the fact that the relationship is not satisfactory in some way from his or her perspective. Although the complaints may be voiced to other people, the point here is that the spouse/partner complained about does not know it. The point of this stage is mostly to vent (for example, to a hair-dresser, bartender, or distant colleague at work) but not to convey to the partner that dissatisfaction is felt. Such dissatisfaction may be about such things as a partner's habits, feeling trapped in a relationship, a sense of injustice about the distribution of effort, or a sense of hopelessness about the resolution of an argument. Nothing more may come of the brooding: The person feels a sense of grievance but does not necessarily proceed to the next stage if the process of venting or reflection is adequate to relieve the sense of negativity about the relationship. Such brooding may be a recurrent activity and probably occurs in most relationships at some time or another without leading to a breakup. Alternatively, if the brooding Intrapsychic Phase does not satisfy the grievance, the person moves to the next stage. When they cannot stand it anymore, they cross the threshold and voice their opinions. The threshold being ‘I can’t stand it anymore’. 

DYADIC PHASE: 

The Dyadic Phase emerges when the couple is confronted with the dissatisfaction experienced by one or both partners. The dyad (the couple as a pair) needs to discuss and evaluate it. Again, such discussions can be constructive and might lead to a reconciliation in the relationship or be threatening and unpleasant. Likewise, they could be recurrent complaints extended over a long period or sudden announcements of new concerns. Such discussion might shock one partner, but in any case, each person will likely be confronted with unknown perspectives on the relationship presented by the other person. Each person will have a view of the relationship. When challenged to present it as an individual, the person may break ranks from the usual points of view of the relationship that both couple members have previously shared. The tenor and outcome of the Dyadic Phase will be a large factor in how things proceed from it. One person may be determined to leave and proceed, or both may want to give things another shot. Intervention teams such as counselling may take place at this point. If they are successful, then the relationship may continue, but if not, then the next threshold will be reached: ‘I would be justified in leaving.’

It is only if things proceed to the next stage that the relationship gets into very serious difficulty that begins an almost unstoppable dissolution process.

SOCIAL PHASE: The next phase, a Social Phase, involves the social networks in which the dyad  (couple)  is necessarily surrounded by—all those other people whose lives intertwine with the couple or one of its members- family, friends etc. Such people are not neutral observers but tend to comment on relationships and on how they are conducted, voicing opinions and common wisdom about how people "should" react to marital transgressions or difficulties in relationships. Any dyad needs to exist within such groups and is, therefore, accountable to them to some extent. Such accounting, advice, and comparison go on throughout a relationship, not only when it is in trouble, but also are particularly important when a relationship hits the rocks. Dyad members then urgently consult with their friends/family to help them understand the relationship breakdown, or receive advice on staying together and dealing with the difficulties. At this point, however, the breakdown becomes a social event—not merely something between the two members of the couple—and therefore becomes "official." As soon as other people know that the relationship is broken up, either partner becomes socially available to new people. However, it is important to note that the breakdown of a given dyad in a relationship network has also caused fallout for other relationships. Relationships with the couple's friends, the partner's work associates, the partner's family, and so on may all dissolve because of the termination of the primary relationship. Of course, relationship dissolution creates a psychological toll on one or both members, members of the network (who do not want to see the relationship end), and children. Rarely does a relationship end that has no consequence for anyone else.In short…relationship problems are aired publically, and the couple tells their friends and family of the relationship, and they may take sides. By this point the split is inevitable, the threshold being ‘I mean it.’

GRAVE-DRESSING PHASE: Last comes the Grave-Dressing Phase. An important and under-recognised feature of the breakup of relationships is the need for people to publish a record of the relationship and its death. For psychological and social reasons, people "need" to justify themselves to other people and, in particular, offer an account of the breakup that shows them in a favourable light relative to relational standards in society. Such stories typically suggest that the breakup was inevitable and necessary for the person to bring about, or else maturely and mutually agreed, or else that the speaker was somehow duped or betrayed by the other person. Such stories serve a social function in placing the speaker in a good light that does not negatively affect their "face" for future relationships, as well as indicating that they are thinking and mature relaters—or innocent victims—who have learned a useful lesson. This sort of story is important for those people who seek to negotiate future relationships of a similar sort to the one lost. People mustn't be perceived as irresponsible partners, damaged goods, or relationally naïve, all of which would be negative characteristics to take into a future relationship.

There is no threshold for this phase, which occurs after the split-up. Each person markets their version of the events and their causes to others, and it’s important to convey a good image to others when trying to form a new relationship. 

RESURRECTION PHASE: 

It involves each person reviewing the relationship, what has been learned, and how a new relationship would differ from that in the future.                      

Conclusion

The breakup of relationships should not be seen as a single event or an individual choice but as a long-term process involving negotiation and communication between the partners and the rest of the network within which the relationship is conducted.

A01 SUPPORTING RESEARCH FOR DUCK’S MODEL:

• Segrin (2000) supports the intra-psychic phase. Initially, when people are unhappy with their relationship, they withdraw from others.

• Duck (2001)- Looked at break-up stories and identified several different formats, finding that stories tend to be constructed so that the speaker is open to new relationships, is not too critical of others, and only ends the relationship after a real effort is made to maintain it.

• The model has good application for the repair of relationships, showing that it is valuable because it can predict and change behaviour in the real world. This is also a demonstration of its external validity as the model considers the potential growth of relationships. It can be used in relationship counselling to pinpoint problems.

CRITICISMS: 

REDUCTIONIST: The couple's behaviour and interactions are potentially reduced to 5 stages. Relationships show fluidity and are dynamic IN REAL LIFE, and human behaviour has so many variables that they cannot all be identified and operationalised.

It doesn’t consider individual differences and individual cases in which all these stages will not occur, such as sudden dissolutions of relationship when, for example, a spouse leaves their partner by simply moving out without having any of the exposure, negotiation or resolution stages

DETERMINISTIC- It doesn’t take into account the distinctiveness of relationships and the fact that we have free will over our thoughts and feelings, which means that even if the relationship is in the social phase, it may be able to recover the relationship through extenuating circumstances, e.g. death of a close relative which may bring the couple back together for emotional support. 

Its process design allows for problems in the relationship to be pinpointed.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES WITH SUPPORT:

The sample used only targeted one social group- i.e. unmarried and young. They may not show as much commitment as older social groups and are, therefore, not necessarily representative of the entire population, lacking external validity. The data collection method was also retrospective self-report questionnaires that took place after the relationship ended. This is a threat to validity as it is vulnerable to social desirability. It’s also ethically invasive in protecting participants and socially sensitive research.

The model is descriptive, not explanatory. It doesn’t explain the reasons for the breakdown itself, and this is a problem because knowing the causes of the breakdown can prevent it from happening, as problem-focused coping (i.e. direct ways of fixing the problem) can be employed. (Lazarus and Folkman 1984) Therefore, Femlee’s (1995) fatal attraction hypothesis can criticise this model as the hypothesis states that the feature which first attracts a person ’blinds’ us to their faults, and over time, the faults become unavoidably noticeable, leading to a breakdown. The model cannot account for this; therefore, it is limited.

This model may be useful in marriage guidance to identify the stage of dissolution and suggest an appropriate course of action.

Duck’s model is concerned mainly with what happens after the breakdown; other stage models, like (Lee’s model) are more concerned with what occurs leading up to the event.

ARGYLE AND HENDERSON (1985) claim that rule violations can cause relationship breakdown. We must obey certain rules, such as keeping confidence; the relationship can break down if these are not followed. The model doesn’t account for this. 

Akert (1998)- 

Found that the role people played in the decision to end the relationship Was the single most important factor in the impact of the experience. The partner who didn’t decide to end the relationship is generally more depressed and unhappy, e.g., the impact of a relationship dissolution – Akert found that the role people played in the decision to end the relationship was the most powerful indicator of how the breakup would affect people – those who didn’t initiate the relationship dissolution (the dumped!) were the most miserable. Those who did initiate it (the dumpers!) didn’t feel so bad, although they did feel guilty. The model doesn’t take this into account. They were supporting the idea that it is reductionist.

It fails to consider the uniqueness of relationships and potentially oversimplifies it down to a single process.

CULTURAL BIAS- Duck’s model can be seen as being culturally biased, specifically towards Western individualistic cultures. This may be because studies for both models tend to take place in America. Collectivist cultures tend to have more arranged marriages that may be formed differently; therefore, it is likely that different pressures will result in their breakdown. Different factors not identified by Duck and Lee’s model may play a part in dissolution, the processes cannot reliably be applied to all cultures therefore it isn’t universal and limited in use. Research in non-Western cultures found differences between those and Western cultures. Moghaddam et al. (1993) found that North American relationships are mainly individualistic (concerned with the needs of the self), voluntary and temporary (the majority of relationships can be terminated). Most non-Western relationships are collective (concerned with the needs of others, e.g. kin), obligatory and permanent.



Lee’s model of relationship dissolution (breakdown)

Lee proposed a five-stage model of relationship breakdown, similar to Ducks' explanation of it being a stage theory and perceiving breakup as a process occurring over time rather than just a single event.

The theory was reached by analysing the data from relationship break-ups.

Dissatisfaction – An individual becomes dissatisfied with the relationship

Exposure – Dissatisfaction is revealed to one’s partner

Negotiation – discussion occurs over the nature of dissatisfaction

Resolution – Attempts made to resolve the dissatisfaction

Termination -If the dissatisfaction is not resolved, the relationship ends

After surveying 112 breakups of non-marital romantic relationships, Lee created his theory, finding that the negotiation and exposure stages were most distressing and emotionally exhausting. Individuals who missed out on stages, going straight to termination, were those with less intimate relationships. Those going through the stages in a lengthy and exhaustive fashion felt attracted to their former partner after termination and experienced greater feelings of loss and loneliness.

Argyle and Henderson asked participants to consider whether rule violations were to blame for personal relationship breakdowns. Rule violations were found to be important factors, with jealousy, lack of tolerance for third-party relationships, disclosing confidences, not volunteering help, and public criticism being most critical, suggesting that Lee’s explanation is incomplete as it does not account for these factors.

The theory can be argued to be simplistic as it cannot explain the whole range of relationships and reasons for breakdown.

One strength, however, of Lee’s research was that a lot of information was gathered, and the sample was large. However, it only contained students in premarital relationships and may not relate to other relationships, especially long-term relationships involving children and shared resources.

Lees's theory is more positive than Ducks, seeing more opportunities for saving problematic relationships. This gives it practical applications in relationship counselling; for example, counsellors can focus on re-establishing affection in the relationship at the exposure stage.

The theory, like Ducks, cannot explain abusive relationships where the abused partner may not initiate the breakdown and even be reluctant to reveal their dissatisfaction. Instead, in some cases, the abused partner may walk away from the relationship or even put up with it.

Stage theories describe the breakup process but do not explain why the process occurs.

Other issues are that both theories are culturally specific as there are cultural differences in relationship breakdown that the Ducks model does not explain. Many non-western cultures have arranged marriages that can be more permanent and involve families in crises.

Both Duck and Lee models have practical applications in counselling. For example, with Lee's model, counsellors can concentrate on re-establishing affection in the relationship if a couple is in the exposure stage.

Both theories can be regarded as reductionist, focusing only on romantic heterosexual relationships, suggesting they do not apply to friendships, homosexual relationships and so on.

Important changes in the late 1960s

• The Abortion Act of 1967 in the UK meant casual sex and relationships no longer incurred pregnancy and stigma.

• The pill mid to late sixties (one thing the pill did do, there is no question about that, was to increase casual sex and to allow relationships to be viewed as less deep. This caused many people to engage in try-before-you-buy relationships. It is impossible to draw any concrete conclusions, and it is impossible to know the effect that the pill had for sure

• In the 1960s, women were more economically dependent on men (there was no equal pay), so they may have married or formed relationships to escape from their parents or because it was the norm.

• Were women more subservient to men in the 1960s, e.g. and therefore perhaps more likely to look up to the men they were dating, be less critical, etc.?

• Less sexual freedom, maybe staying in a long-term relationship allowed sex or stopped sexual name-calling of women

• People got married earlier and formed proper relationships earlier.

• Divorce harder